Because what could possibly go wrong.

  • @money_loo
    link
    11 year ago

    Are you defending makers of murder bots at me right now buddy?

    Yeah, totally in earnest. 🙄

    • @smokin_shinobi
      link
      -11 year ago

      Yes exactly. To me they are makers of murder bots, but to you they are not. For me to understand why you feel this way I have to ask right.

      For me if a company has a contract in place to provide robots to any entity that are going to be weaponized they should be held responsible.

      It doesn’t seem to be the case for some people and that’s what I was wondering about. But now I’m just kind of tired of responding to a bunch of non answers.

      • @money_loo
        link
        11 year ago

        If somebody uses a bat to kill someone, do you think Louisville Slugger should be held responsible? Yes or no and why.

        • @smokin_shinobi
          link
          11 year ago

          No because Louisville doesn’t have a contract in place to provide Sluggers to said hypothetical lunatic.

          BD does have a contract in place to provide these to the Military though do they not?

          • @money_loo
            link
            11 year ago

            So say they have a contract to provide them to Phillies fans via a stadium deal, and then someone bludgeons a guy to death in the parking lot, what about now?

            • @smokin_shinobi
              link
              11 year ago

              Depends I suppose those really aren’t comparable and I’d think there would be liability for it somewhere, but probably with the stadium. But that’s not a bat that’s been modified outside of specs, certainly not with prior knowledge to Louisville.

              This is more like should Louisville be held responsible for striking up a deal with a nail company that turns their sluggers into maces and then somebody gets bludgeoned. In which case yes they should be held responsible.

              • @money_loo
                link
                11 year ago

                OK, but the military is not just a nail company. They make way more stuff than just weapons, a lot of regular things came out of military funding.

                For all the seller knows they could be using it for search and rescue. They are not responsible for the end result of what happens to their product when it ends up in the consumers or buyers hands.

                Only in cases of negligence does that apply.

                The military using these robots as weapons is very different from Boston dynamics using these robots as weapons

                It’s really quite simple.

                That said, you seem to think the seller of a product has a responsibility to sell only to safe places that won’t go against their own morals and values, and you may have a valid point to that but that’s an entirely different thing than saying “Boston dynamics is itself making robot death machines”.

                They make machine that become death machines when modified, would be a more correct statement.

                • @smokin_shinobi
                  link
                  -11 year ago

                  The marines have this video showing exactly what they are doing with them. You aren’t doing search and rescue with a grenade launcher.

                  I’m not concerned with this ending up in court either. Boston Dynamics is 100% responsible because without them there wouldn’t be murder bots because the military wouldn’t have their bots to build on. Could the military build their own? Of course but they are buying them from BD instead and that’s why we should absolutely hold them responsible.